Archeological Resource Protection Plan for Grazing and Other Known Impacts | P17AS00425

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the title of this grant opportunity?

The opportunity is titled Archeological Resource Protection Plan for Grazing and Other Known Impacts.

What is the Funding Opportunity Number?

The Funding Opportunity Number is P17AS00425.

Which federal agency offered this opportunity?

This opportunity was offered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

What type of funding instrument was used?

It was offered as a discretionary cooperative agreement.

What activity category does this opportunity fall under?

The activity category is Natural Resources.

What CFDA number is associated with this opportunity?

The opportunity lists CFDA 15.945.

When was the opportunity created?

The opportunity was created on June 22, 2017.

When was the original application closing date?

The original application closing date was July 1, 2017.

How many awards were anticipated?

The program anticipated making one award.

What was the maximum funding level?

The maximum funding level was $8,000.

Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was limited to nonprofit organizations with IRS-recognized 501(c)(3) status, and it excluded institutions of higher education.

What park unit(s) were the focus of the project?

The work was intended to support Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (GLCA), and it references increasing visitation at both GLCA and Rainbow Bridge National Monument (RABR).

What was the main purpose of the grant?

The core purpose was to support GLCA in rewriting and modernizing its Archaeological Resources Protection Plan (ARPP) so the plan reflects current realities, current best practices, and updated knowledge about archeological resources and impacts.

Why did GLCA need to update its Archaeological Resources Protection Plan?

The existing ARPP dated to 1996 with a minor update in 2002. Since then, GLCA expanded its understanding of the archeological record, improved documentation of sites and conditions, and developed a clearer picture of threats. Conditions on the ground also changed, including increased visitation and a shift toward more land-based backcountry travel.

What were the three main things the updated ARPP was expected to accomplish?

The revised ARPP was expected to:

1. Formalize monitoring and protection approaches developed since the original plan into an organized strategy that can be applied consistently while still allowing visitor enjoyment.
2. Address the balance between interpretation and resource sensitivity by providing baseline educational information without disclosing details that could increase risk to sites.
3. Refresh priorities for monitoring, inventory work, and protection actions, serving as a roadmap based on modern conditions, threats, and visitor-use patterns.

What does the opportunity mean by modernizing the ARPP?

Based on the description, modernization meant updating the plan to incorporate GLCA's newer methods for documenting sites and conditions, reflecting an expanded understanding of the archeological record, and aligning management actions with current visitation patterns and known impacts.

What major synthesis deliverable was expected as part of the revised plan?

A major deliverable was a synthesis of roughly 45 years of archeological information gathered since GLCA was established, bringing decades of work into a coherent foundation document to support management decisions.

How was the revised ARPP intended to support visitor education without increasing risk to sites?

The plan was expected to lay out an approach for providing baseline information for education and interpretation while avoiding disclosure of details that could put sensitive archeological resources at risk.

How would this updated plan be used after it was completed?

The opportunity positioned the revised ARPP as a guiding framework for future fieldwork and on-the-ground protection efforts, helping GLCA monitor, protect, and interpret archeological resources under increasing use and evolving impacts.

Was public outreach part of the project design?

Yes. In addition to producing the updated ARPP, the project was designed to include a strong stewardship and outreach component, including sharing results outside typical National Park Service channels to reach broader public audiences.

How were youth expected to be involved?

The recipient organization was expected to involve youth directly through employment opportunities tied to resource stewardship.

How did the opportunity describe changes in visitation and use patterns?

It noted that visitation at GLCA and RABR has been increasing, and that use patterns have shifted, with land-based backcountry travel growing sharply.

What kinds of impacts or threats was the updated ARPP meant to address?

The opportunity generally refers to improved understanding of what is harming or threatening archeological resources, and it explicitly links the work to management efforts addressing livestock grazing impacts on cultural resources and other evolving impacts associated with changing use.

How does grazing relate to the project?

The opportunity explicitly connects the revised ARPP to related efforts to address livestock grazing impacts on cultural resources, indicating that grazing was one of the known impact areas the updated framework needed to consider.

What other NPS planning and management initiatives were linked to this project?

The opportunity explicitly linked the revised ARPP to initiatives to:

• Address livestock grazing impacts on cultural resources
• Assess potential impairment of lakeshore cultural resources
• Develop stewardship planning for backcountry roads and off-road vehicle routes and areas

Was the project intended to influence interpretive products?

Yes. The synthesis and updated plan were described as supporting better management decisions and serving as a springboard for new interpretive products that help the public understand park archeology in a responsible way.

Was the focus limited to internal planning within the NPS?

No. While the ARPP is a planning document intended to guide management, the opportunity also emphasized external outreach and sharing results beyond typical NPS channels to broaden public engagement.